Intel Xeon 1MB L2 vs. 2MB L2

U

Ultra Wide

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2000
Messages
1,396
Is there a noticeable difference at the same 3.0Ghz between one with 1MB vs. 2MB L2?

I am looking to get a Dell 470 and they have the option for 3.0Ghz 1MB or 2MB L2 cache.

I think everything else is exactly the same except for the L2 cache size.
 
For an AMD desktop system loading up on cache won't make too much of a difference (512k is "enough"). For an Intel P4 system, adding cache will help more than than adding cache would to an AMD system. This is because of Intel's FSB issues. On a dual+ Xeon system, cache will be even more important, again, because of the shared FSB issue. The more cache you have, the less you need to access the slow FSB.
 
Yep...

Cache is a way to bring memory "closer" to the CPU....

Iguess the best way to explain that is kinda like this....

Think of a warehouse that stores all of the products for you company. The warehouse is main memory. Your company has two locations. Each location is a CPU. Each location has it's own small warehouse in the back room. The back room warehouse is the L2 Cache. The more each backroom can hold, the less deliveries that need to be made from the larger warehouse....

Big warehouse = RAM
Each location = CPU
Back room = L2


HOWEVER, there is a catch.... If you have enough trucks to make the deliveries you don't need a large back room warehouse

Trucks = Transport Bus (FSB, HT etc,,,,)

So becouse Xeon is extremely bottlenecked on the FSB, it NEEDS as much Cache as it can get....

If you can afford it get the larger cache... Or better yet, get an Opteron....
 
duby229 said:
Yep...

Cache is a way to bring memory "closer" to the CPU....

Iguess the best way to explain that is kinda like this....

Think of a warehouse that stores all of the products for you company. The warehouse is main memory. Your company has two locations. Each location is a CPU. Each location has it's own small warehouse in the back room. The back room warehouse is the L2 Cache. The more each backroom can hold, the less deliveries that need to be made from the larger warehouse....

Big warehouse = RAM
Each location = CPU
Back room = L2


HOWEVER, there is a catch.... If you have enough trucks to make the deliveries you don't need a large back room warehouse

Trucks = Transport Bus (FSB, HT etc,,,,)

So becouse Xeon is extremely bottlenecked on the FSB, it NEEDS as much Cache as it can get....

If you can afford it get the larger cache... Or better yet, get an Opteron....
Click to expand...

nice :)
 
Thanks for the explanation.

what about real world performance? I know that the new Xeons use 800mhz FSB which is a good improvement over the previous 533mhz. I mean like going from 512MB ram to 1024MB makes a great difference in real world performance, but going from say 1GB to 2GB doesn't really make a huge noticeable difference. I ask because the price difference is rather large between the 1MB and 2MB L2 and if it's not too different in real world performancem then I rather save some money and just go for the 1MB L2.
 
visaris said:
For an AMD desktop system loading up on cache won't make too much of a difference (512k is "enough"). For an Intel P4 system, adding cache will help more than than adding cache would to an AMD system. This is because of Intel's FSB issues.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not the reason. P4's benefit from added cache because the chip's architecture makes it necessary to have it, where-as the AMD architecture was made to be independent of cache... the biggest reason the Duron and T-Bred's did well... where-as why the barton was only marginally faster (mainly due to core revision!) Essentially, the ClawHammer/NewCastle cores were the next step in the Barton architecture with the introduction of X86-64 and HTT.
 
Ultra Wide said:
Thanks for the explanation.

what about real world performance? I know that the new Xeons use 800mhz FSB which is a good improvement over the previous 533mhz. I mean like going from 512MB ram to 1024MB makes a great difference in real world performance, but going from say 1GB to 2GB doesn't really make a huge noticeable difference. I ask because the price difference is rather large between the 1MB and 2MB L2 and if it's not too different in real world performancem then I rather save some money and just go for the 1MB L2.
Click to expand...

You are not likely to see any real-world performance getting the 1MB L2 chip over the 2MB... and synthetically-reproduced benchmarks will be the only hint that you bought one over the other.
 
Right,

Intel thrives off more cache, because their deep pipeline needs to always be filled to achieve the best performance.

But I will still state that More cache is better than less cache. It may not be worth the price premium. But Say cost is no factor, I would opt for more cache rather than less.

When someone is asking "what chip to buy" a 2Ghz Chip w/ 512k or 2Ghz Chip w/ 1MB. I will tell them the one with more cache every time.

When you overclock, you can always Add more MHz (to a point) but you cant just simply add more cache if you want/need it.

Am I thinking logically? I think so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top